Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by John Brautigam and seconded by Cllr P Lewington.
Apologies were received from Cabinet Member County Councillor P Roberts (Cabinet Member for Learning). Officers The Director of Social Services and Wellbeing, Nina Davies The Deputy Head of Finance, Anne Phillips The Assistant Director of SWAP, Ian Halstead
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda. Minutes of previous meeting: Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Update was requested regarding the meeting between Senedd Member and Audit Wales in June 2025. The Auditor General considered the meeting a valuable insight into perceptions of the Council’s planning service. However, given that Audit Wales had already conducted a planning review and a follow-up, they were not minded to undertake another. The information gathered would instead inform the forthcoming corporate governance review. Dissatisfaction was shared with how the planning issue was being handled. It was suggested that the council could commission SWAP to undertake a focused review of planning metrics. The Chair acknowledged the concerns, noting that while no decision would be made in the meeting, the committee must consider how to seek assurance and manage the associated risks, including reputational impact. The CEO stated that they had not had any contact with Audit Wales from the meetings that took place and expected to be notified if anything significant had been raised. The Monitoring Officer offered to discuss ‘off-line’ with the Chair, how best GAC obtains the necessary assurances. ACTION Update was requested regarding Audit Wales’s Planned Governance Review. Audit Wales officers informed the committee that the scope for the corporate governance review had been finalised. The review would focus on whether Powys County Council’s governance arrangements to support the effective delivery of change aligned with its Sustainable Powys principles. The final report was expected after October 2025, following a three-phase approach: reviewing internal audit findings, examining relevant documents, and interviewing officers and members. It was noted that GAC members would have the opportunity to inform the review findings. Could a review of the effectiveness of policies be undertaken in the Corporate Governance Framework Review?
Background provided by the Director of Economic Development and Growth. • The paper was presented at the committee’s request to examine risks associated with the GCRE project and Powys County Council’s involvement. • It focused on the restoration of the Nant Helen site, which spans Powys and Neath Port Talbot, requiring joint planning oversight. • The estimated cost of works to be completed was £4million. • The committee was asked to consider the planning, financial, and operational risks, particularly around restoration funding and cross-county coordination. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked whether the remaining restoration work could be completed with the available £4 million. The Director of Economic Development and Growth confirmed that she and the Chief Executive had visited the site and were confident that the remaining restoration work could be completed with the available £4 million. Members questioned who would carry the financial risk if the restoration could not be completed. The financial risk sat with GCRE Ltd. Concerns were raised about the local skills deficit. What was being done to address it? GCRE had been working with schools, Welsh and UK governments to provide STEM education and retraining opportunities. Aspirations had previously been shared for a long-distance footpath along the site. Would this be dealt with as part of the reinstatement works? As part of the planning application there was a requirement to restore a footpath around the edge of the site. It was questioned why the planning risk was considered low. The planning risk was considered low because an approved planning application already existed, and any changes would be submitted as revisions. Clarification was sought on what “sufficiently safe” meant in the context of site safety. “Sufficiently safe” was defined as the site being restored to a level that mitigated health and safety risks, with further development contingent on future planning applications. Would Powys County Council be the planning authority for the site? Powys County Council was the main planning authority, but the site also fell under Neath Port Talbot, requiring joint planning guidance. A clear timeline for the planning submission was requested. A request was made for the risk register to be presented more visually. This was acknowledged and noted for future reports.
Background presented by the Strategic Equalities and Risk Officer. • The report set out the Council’s latest position on managing key strategic risks contained in the Strategic Risk Register. • At the end of Quarter 4 there were 14 risks on the Strategic Risk Register, each reviewed by their respective owners. • The purpose of the report was to provide assurance that mitigating actions were being implemented and monitored. • The report included a heat map and highlighted two risks that had changed in probability or impact. • Digital Services requested to de-escalate risk CT0067. • Audit Wales had conducted a risk management audit in March 2025 and the report was expected soon. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members questioned the rationale for de-escalating risk CT0067 despite ongoing threats. The Head of Digital Services explained that while the impact remained high, the threat had been reduced due to new detection software, monthly phishing simulations, and targeted training. Concern was shared regarding operating systems changing at the end of 2025 from Windows 10 to Windows 11 and whether this exposed the council to further risk. Reassurance was given that a programme of work surrounded this. Of the Council’s devices, only 320 were left to be completed over the next 4 months. Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital and Community Services offered assurance there was no complacency. The risk was always changing but mitigated by ongoing investment and commitment by the Council. The report noted targets of vacancies being reduced to 180 by quarter three, 2024-25. Had that been achieved? Was the target of 64% average to recruit on the first time in quarters 2 and quarters three met? Rationale was requested around the increases seen in re-enablement and support worker recruitment. Concern was expressed about reducing the rating of the recruitment and retention risk before the scheduled deep dive. The Chair of the Committee acknowledged that it was the responsibility of Cabinet members, their teams, and the Corporate Leadership Team, to escalate or de-escalate risks as appropriate. The committee’s role was to scrutinise those decisions and evaluate the associated control frameworks. While changes to scoring were not necessarily expected as a result of deep dives, they formed part of an ongoing, iterative assurance process. Members asked why the school building stock risk did not reference Estyn inspections or the Accelerated Improvement Board. The CEO clarified that the Estyn inspection and Accelerated Improvement Board (AIB) were too recent to be reflected in the school building stock risk controls but would be monitored going forward. It was also explained that the AIB was not a control in itself but a governance structure to support improvement. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation explained that both risks had been added to the Strategic Risk Register following recognition that the schools’ major improvement grant was insufficient to cover the required works. Assurance was provided that a separate report addressing the safeguarding risks identified by Estyn had been prepared and that funding had been secured to resolve those issues. Therefore, it was not expected that it would become a risk in future. Action taken to request a written response from the Director of Education to offer assurance. ACTION Concern was raised regarding the attention to detail given to the control and action sections of the risk register. It was observed that some updates appeared to be repetitive. The Strategic Equalities and Risk Officer acknowledged the committee’s concerns and committed to improving the quality of reporting. The Director of Corporate Services assured the committee that a robust risk management framework existed, but not all detail was visible in the report. Concern was raised whether Risk EDR0011 was being managed with sufficient urgency and detail. Chair asked officers to note this concern. It was questioned what was being done to address staff retention specifically, not just recruitment. A suggestion was made to use risk titles instead of codes in the heat map for clarity. This was noted. Concern was raised that the council did not have a sufficient risk management process to meet the risks defined. It was agreed that this would be picked up when the committee received the Audit Wales Risk Management Review. The Director of Corporate Services confirmed that the Council had a robust framework and system in place for managing risk. The committee’s concern was acknowledged, and it was noted that the forthcoming Audit Wales review would examine the framework in depth and provide the committee with an independent perspective on assurance levels. Committee noted that the Risk appetite paper was delayed due to Corporate Leadership Team and Cabinet needing further time to review the paper.
Background provided by the Chief Accountant. • This was the standard quarterly report and year-end update on the Council’s treasury management activities. • It covered investment performance, borrowing, capital programme financing, and compliance with prudential indicators. • The report also included updates on sundry debt, council tax and NNDR collection, and VAT compliance. • The aim was to ensure transparency and provide assurance on the Council’s financial stewardship. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members questioned why the trend lines in the sundry debt graphs did not reflect actual changes in debt levels. The Chief Accountant explained that the trend lines in the sundry debt graphs tracked total aged debt since Q1 2022/23, and small changes might not be visually apparent. It was asked whether the council was likely to face large write-offs of aged debt. Aged debt was reviewed by services and only written off when deemed unrecoverable. The Director of Corporate Services acknowledged that the reasons for delayed debt recovery were well understood and justifiable. Each service area had been tasked with reviewing its outstanding debt, supported by improved oversight through the finance dashboard. As part of the debt working group, services were examining specific elements in greater detail to distinguish between long-term, valid debt and cases where further action was required. It was confirmed that this would be followed up to ensure a clearer understanding and appropriate action. ACTION What proportion of the aged debt was secured, such as through deferred charges on properties? The Director of Corporate Services answered that some debt was long-term by nature (e.g., deferred charges on properties) and that services were using dashboards to monitor and act on debt. Was the current level of debt as a percentage of income acceptable and what was the council’s threshold? Clarification provided that the 25% debt-to-income ratio was a comparative indicator and that more context could be added in future reports. A suggestion was made for the committee to receive a presentation on the dashboard and automated debt recovery tools in a member development session. ACTION Committee noted that adult social care represented the Council’s largest category of outstanding debt. A portion of which related to high-cost care and was often secured through deferred charges placed on individuals’ properties. Clarification was sought on whether the reported figures reflected the total debt before or after such charges had been applied, as secured debt differed significantly from unsecured debt in terms of recoverability. The Chief Accountant explained that within the finance system, each debt was marked to indicate its stage in the recovery process, including whether a charge had been placed on a property. The overall figures presented in the table reflected total debt, which included a mix of secured and unsecured amounts depending on the recovery stage. Some debts had deferred charges applied to properties, while others had not yet reached that point.
Background provided by The Senior Manager Customer Services and Information Governance. • The report provided information on the Council’s use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA). • The Council had been inspected by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office in July 2022, and all recommendations had been implemented. • No use of RIPA had been made between April 2023 and March 2024. • The RIPA policy had been revised to reflect changes in communications data handling and updates to the responsible authorising officer (Chief Executive). Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members questioned why the report referenced dates beyond the stated reporting period. The Senior Manager Customer Services and Information Governance confirmed that the date discrepancy in the report was due to overlapping reporting periods and that the RIPA policy had been updated accordingly. Clarification was requested regarding whether the sentence under Section 3.1 of the report was duplicated. Could the committee receive a summary of the eight recommendations from the IPCO inspection? The 8 recommendations from the inspector were reported through the regulatory tracker and were completed towards the beginning of the financial year. A suggestion was made to include a column in future whistleblowing reports indicating whether a CHIS was involved. Not all whistleblowers would be classified as CHIS, and none had been identified during the reporting period. It was agreed to discuss with officers the possibility of adding a CHIS indicator to future whistleblowing reports. Concerns were raised about whether there was a joined-up approach between whistleblowing and RIPA reporting. The Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services reminded the committee that RIPA-related recommendations had already been reviewed via the regulatory tracker and that IPCO had recently confirmed no further investigation was needed.
Background provided by The Senior Manager Customer Services and Information Governance. • The report covered two reporting periods: November 2022 to October 2023 and November 2023 to October 2024. • It highlighted a significant increase in complaints during 2022–2023, followed by a slight decrease the following year. • However, there was an increase in the proportion of complaints upheld. • The report outlined steps taken to work with services to identify lessons learned and improve complaint handling. • From April 2025, the system was updated to require investigating officers to record lessons learned and actions taken. • The report also supported the development of a broader customer experience framework. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Committee appreciated reference to the Sustainable Powys work. Since community engagement was central to the Sustainable Powys approach, it was vital that staff and elected members were aligned. These aspects were also noted in the SWAP internal audit report, so it may be worth exploring any potential connections. Members asked how complaints raised via councillors were captured in the corporate complaints process. The Senior Manager Customer Services and Information Governance confirmed that the report only covered complaints submitted through the corporate process and not those raised informally via councillors. It was questioned whether smaller service areas with rising complaint numbers were being monitored closely. The Director of Corporate Services assured the committee that smaller service areas with rising complaint numbers were being monitored through self-assessment processes. A suggestion was made to shift the language from “complaints” to “corporate feedback” to encourage learning. Concerns were raised about whether the council was proactively identifying trends and cultural issues from complaints. The Head of Digital Services added that all complaints, regardless of volume, were treated equally and that lessons learned were being captured and used to inform service improvements. Committee requested that reports were presented in a more timely manner. ACTION
Background: • This item was postponed due to the unavoidable absence of the presenting officer. • The report was scheduled to be brought to the next Committee meeting.
Background Provided by the Head of Business Intelligence and Governance. • The report provided an overview of regulatory recommendations for Quarter 4 (January to March 2025). • It included a summary of 46 recommendations: 22 new, 33 open (29 on track, 3 off track, 1 without update), and 13 completed. • The tracker was used to monitor progress and ensure transparency. • An extract of the tracker was included in the meeting pack for ease of reference. No issues or concerns were raised by the committee. Committee noted the report.
Internal Audit Working Group • The Working Group had not met since the last committee meeting but was scheduled to meet on 25th June 2025. Capital Working Group • The Working Group had recently reconvened and held its first meeting. Whistleblowing Working Group • The Working Group’s report had been submitted to Cabinet.
Background: • The Chair proposed that the Climate Emergency and Nature Emergency risk deep dives be taken together. • Councillor A Kennerley supported this and noted the relevance of upcoming county-wide workshops on adaptation and mitigation. • The committee agreed to schedule the deep dive before the next budget-setting cycle to ensure timely influence. ACTION.
Background: • It was noted that the seminar planned for the 11th of July would focus on the Draft Statement of Accounts and the Annual Governance Statement. • A new seminar would be arranged to present the committee with the Self-Assessment. • It was noted that the Risk Appetite paper had been delayed due to further review needed by CLT and Cabinet. • Members were encouraged to suggest additional topics for future agendas by contacting the Chair and scrutiny officers. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked when the delayed Risk Appetite paper would be brought to the committee. It was confirmed that members could suggest topics for future deep dives via email.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by John Brautigam and seconded by Cllr P Lewington.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by John Brautigam and seconded by Cllr P Lewington.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.